Declining can adversely affect the driver's rating. How it does so, and the imolications of that rating, are unilaterally decided by Uber. There is no negotiation; as a driver, you either agree or you don't drive for Uber.
I am not aware of Uber manipulating ratings of cancelled rides. From my understanding of the platform only riders can rate the driver. Is there a published policy that would back up either of our assertions?
Not cancelled, declined. The rider can't rate the ride because it was never scheduled in the first place. From the user's perspective, they're still waiting for the app to find a driver. They revised it in 2017.
> Moreover, declining rides won't negatively impact drivers as much as it did before.[0]
Of course, won't impact as much still means impact.
The 'Internet' is working as intended. The issue is how HTTP is used and its availability in most consumer devices. Regulation is required, but won't occur with a US congress that is pro-business and anti-consumer.
California could regulate companies within its borders, but it would stand to lose that sweet tax revenue on shares and RSU's when they move to a different state.
> The 'Internet' is working as intended. The issue is how HTTP is used and its availability in most consumer devices.
I partly put the blame on late 90s web developers for this. Instead of developing web /browsers/, the industry should've built web /communicators/ (one would think Netscape could've figured this out).
That is, we should've been using tools that make publishing content on the web as easy as consuming content[1].
If that mindset had been cultivated then and we had user friendly tools to support it, public mentality about sharing content would be different, and after years of improvement we might have a more balanced internet today where each user has full control over their data.
Unfortunately, we built web browsers for consumption only, the advertising industry took hold of our business models, which naturally created silos that grew richer and more powerful.
We can build and have built better tools, but the inertia of how things work today makes it difficult for alternative platforms to take off.
It still makes no sense to me that we use powerful computers to run web clients that send data somewhere on the internet where it is served for me, when the computer I'm using can serve this data just fine (assuming some infrastructure is in place to handle this).
[1]: This is something Opera attempted much later in 2009 with Unite (https://dev.opera.com/blog/taking-the-web-into-our-own-hands...), but abandoned it shortly later. I imagine they were missing a lot of network infrastructure and it being too confusing for end-users to make this a success. Are there previous attempts of this in a consumer browser?
There's no serious prospect of the whole planet being too 'toxic' for human groups to exist here and there. Even the probable nuclear wars aren't going to leave everything uninhabitable.
The sheer amount of suffering and destruction involved between here and there, human and more-than-human like, will be catastrophic. Everything present-day humans know and love will be gone. The existence of small groups surviving marginally in the crumbling remnants of our our once-magnificent ecosystems is no silver lining worth caring about.
He neglected to mention usenet, where he made his original announcement about his hobby OS. The Usenet alt groups were one of the first examples of what's seen in FB/TWT/IG today. What's changed is who has access and the methods of access - everyone and everywhere.
